Basically, you just need to append the other project's prefix to the article title and terminate it with a vertical bar (so that the prefix isn't shown). Some useful variations:

q: directs to Wikiquote from other projects. Likewise, s: jumps to Wikisource, wikt: to Wiktionary, etc.

w:en: is the long form, including language. Practice is to leave the "xx:" off for links between projects in the same language, but it's handy for interlanguage links, like w:fr:Le Fantôme de Canterville.

Thank you very much for all your work on Wikiquote:Reference desk. Finding quote sources and original usage is the most challenging task when compiling quotes, and very few editors ever work here at all. Your substantial, well-researched, and detailed contributions are absolutely invaluable! ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I'm sure. Personally I find researching people's quotation queries enormously good fun, and the benefit to the querist is more or less a bonus. Pity there aren't even more of them on Reference Desk. Antiquary 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You might do some random page hunting. I've noticed that many of the people articles have such queries on their talk pages. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have been premature in saying I was getting the hang of this. How does using 'Random page' get me onto talk pages? Or how else do I get onto people's talk pages? I'm sure you've made a very useful suggestion if only I could follow it through. Antiquary 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Aha! The penny has finally dropped. No answer needed, thanks. Antiquary 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I could have been clearer. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the Geoffrey Chaucer stub from four quotes to sixteen, but I don't believe I now have it formatted correctly. I wonder if you could take a look at it? Antiquary 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, please forgive my addition of a wiki link to Chaucer in your posting. It's a good idea to include such a link to make it easier for your correspondents (and you yourself if you are reviewing old discussions) to jump to the subject of the discussion.

You've formatted the Chaucer material as well as any poetry can be expected, I think. Linking only the first occurrence of titles is good. Everything else about the formatting is probably a subject of ongoing debate, but I'll list some points here:

Many editors feel poetry should be italicized. I don't believe we have any style guidelines or have had any recent discussion on this point. There are pros and cons to this idea.

It's a good idea to include terminating slashes in your HTML break tags (<br/> or <br />) to make them XHTML-compliant, but Wikimedia projects are still quite sloppy about this. (Consider that we can't even agree on whether there should be a space or no space before the slash.) I like to put spaces around the tag itself (e.g., "litel spir, <br/> So thorugh") because I don't like cramming non-quote material into the actual quote bits, but that's a personal preference that most don't seem to follow around here. If Wikimedia ever gets around to enforcing XHTML compliance, we can fix these issues with a bot, so it's an issue that's mostly only addressed while one does other editing to an article.

We tend to favor double quotes wherever quote marks are called for, even for British material, because of the "split the difference" compromise worked out years ago at w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, which is basically:

Using double quotes (American style) allows consistency and single inner quotes, and prevents some search problems.

Placing punctuation outside the quotes unless part of the quote (British style) makes more sense to editors sensitized by computer technology to syntactic token balance. (I don't know if anyone has ever explained it that way, but anyone familiar with the demands of logical punctuation in computer programming can see the illogic of the American system, which was, after, established by a single author working alone over 150 years ago.)

By insisting that both sides compromise a key principle, we promote both a consistent style and cooperation.

Of course, plenty of folks ignore their half of the compromise and complain endlessly about unreasonable British or American editors. Oh, well.

Source lines sometimes end in periods and sometimes don't. We don't really have a guideline on this. WP says no periods, but since they often use bullets for multi-sentence information, even they have problems with consistency.

Finally, we discourage the use of links within headings. They tend to complicate wiki links and (especially for Wikiquote links to Wikipedia) make it hard or sometimes impossible to include useful edit summaries, which are very, very important. On the other hand, we have no established format on how to provide a link to a work that is itself an entire section. WP doesn't have this problem, as its articles can always make a linked reference in the first sentence of the text section, but all we have are quotes. Some articles include an indented, italicized line providing either the title and year (which is somewhat redundant) or the full publication details for source purposes (more useful). Some include a footnote for each quote to a reference section that has the wiki links along with the full citation (also useful for proper sourcing). Some might even include the sources lines to provide the link (very redundant, but perhaps less jarring that the first two).

As you can see, there are many formatting issues, large and small, that aren't really established here at Wikiquote. I've taken the time to address them here to give you a summary of the kinds of things we worry about and often don't bother to address, since the more important goals are adding and properly sourcing quotes. You're welcome to join in the fun of debating these issues as they arise in different articles (with different subsets of editors!), and the occasional push, at WQ:VP, WQ:MOS, or Wikiquote:Templates and its subpages, to establish policies. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think - I think - I've got everything in Geoffrey Chaucer more or less into compliance with house style now. Antiquary 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an elementary question, and one I should know the answer to by now: when does it accord with the etiquette of Wikiquote to delete quotations? I ask because I see that many of the various Attributed sections include entries which I find it impossible to believe were written by the supposed authors, and which I cannot find that anyone has ever attributed to those authors. I'm not talking here about quotations that are merely unsourced and (by me) unsourceable - that's what Attributed sections are for. In some ways it seems a shame to delete anything that someone else thought worth including, but then again it also seems a shame that Wikiquote should become a factory of misattributions. Antiquary 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy or regular practice on this issue. My personal take is that "attributed" or "unsourced" quotes are, for the most part, not much better than rumor, so we lose nothing when someone deletes them. There are, of course, well-known attributions without sources, especially for the more famous of our quotees, and removing any attributed quote decreases the chance someone will work to find a source for it. But given the overall editing activity at Wikiquote, the commonality of widespread mistakes in quote attributions, and the not infrequent attempts of some editors to introduce bogus or misrepresented quotes, I think we need to encourage the very few people who are willing to remove material to do so, especially when the quotes are implausible. I'd remove such a quote with an edit summary like "rm unsourced, unlikely quote" to make clear the reason (and hopefully encourage any objector to make a bit more effort to source or otherwise justify it). ~ Jeff Q(talk) 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: I see my way clearer now. "Removing any attributed quote decreases the chance someone will work to find a source for it". Good point, but I don't propose to remove anything that I think could conceivably have any basis in fact. My personal rule would be: no findable source, completely implausible, no-one even it attributes it to him...Delete it. Antiquary 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that quotes from the Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides are now in two chronological places on the Johnson page: one group in 1773 and the other in 1785. The quote about writing aphoristically, for example, is now duplicated. I just wanted to let you know in case you were going to be making more additions from the Journal; if not, I'll combine the quotes myself - probably for 1773, the date of the journey, rather than 1785, the date of publication. - InvisibleSun 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How careless of me not to notice that! Yes, I quite agree with all you say. I don't plan to add anything more just yet. Antiquary 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to start cleaning up the article! I only intended to check the quotes for accuracy with my print copy of the "Adeventures", but to be honest I never got around to it. First real life interfered, then I just plain forgot about it. If you're looking for formatting suggestions, I rather like the Firefly (TV series) page. I think their template could be adapted to the purpose. Kerowyn 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it interest you to become a Wikiquote administrator? You've contributed so much to this site. If it isn't, however, something that would appeal to you, I hope that you will pardon this intrusion. - InvisibleSun 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to second the invitation.--Cato 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, this is certainly an unexpected honour! I'm very pleased to have been asked, but it wouldn't be a good idea for me to accept. You see, I'm the sort of man who can only concentrate on the things he shouldn't really be doing. I can be very industrious at idling, such as I do here, but making me an admin would be the first step towards making it a chore for me to log on to Wikiquote, and that would be the end of it. Much better that I should carry on creating pages, and doing the odd bit of maintenance on the side. But thanks again for the vote of confidence. Cheers! Antiquary 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As a member of this community you may wish to take a look at the Requests for Checkuser rights for Cato here. My apologies if you would prefer not to have received this but there is a requirement for 25 affirmative votes for the rights to be granted. If you have any queries feel free to ask me.--Poetlister 13:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Too kind! I'll never get into the Tolkien fan club now, but then none of us are doing this to be popular. In any case Tolkien has to be a priority: his publishers sue. --Antiquary 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally, articles that have been voted on previously ought to be re-nominated for a vote rather than prod, but I'm not complaining: Pages full of things that are both unsourced and trivial just attract made up stuff. If anyone does object, just put them to a vote. I am pretty sure the consensus of current community sentiment would be to delete them. ~ Ningauble 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the prods for that very reason. Take it to VfD; there's a chance that it'll get improved there, and if not, well, at least more sets of eyes have seen them. EVula// talk // ☯ // 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This very question was raised in the section headed "Invitation" above, and I'm afraid the reasons I gave there for thinking it a hazardous idea still apply. So, thanks and get thee behind me, Cirt! --Antiquary 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I read it and understand. However you would be able to help out with vandalism. :( Cirt (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

'Tis a fine job you do, indeed. None can fault your declining the "honor" of taking out the rubbish as well, but don't be surprised if it comes up every year or so. ~ Ningauble 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The last quote you deleted wasn't from the movie, but an audio production. As such, it did not conflict with the number of comments recommended. I'm adding it back for the moment, if you would like to argue about it, please bring it up on the talk page.198.146.57.248

Thanks for taking on the Herculean task of cleaning up The Simpsons, which has long been an embarrassment to Wikiquote. I thought it would be a Sisyphean task as well, and can hardly believe did not spark immeniate contention. Your good work has inspired me to do more copyright cleanup myself. ~ Ningauble 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. Trimming The Simpsons may be Herculean but there are enough good jokes to make it quite entertaining as well. Personally I'll be congratulating whoever takes on Beavis and Butt-Head or Warhammer 40,000: greater love hath no man... --Antiquary 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that the following quote of Franz Kafka was removed because of being unsourced:

"We are as forlorn as children lost in the wood. When you stand in front of me an look at me, what do you know of the grief's that are in me and what do I know of yours. And if I were to cast myself down before you and tell you, what more would you know about me that you know about Hell when someone tells you it is hot and dreadful? For that reason alone we human beings ought to stand before one another as reverently, as reflectively, as lovingly, as we would before the entrance to Hell."

On 9 March 2009, you deleted a page for John Taylor ( actually, the note says it was moved to a page for John_ Taylor_(Latter_Day_Saints). This John Taylor was the third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1880 to 1887. I arrived at the John_Taylor page by following a link from the page for Poor_Richard's_Almanack, expecting to arrive at a page for John Taylor, the English "water poet" (1580-1653). Early prose and poetical works of John Taylor, the water poet (1580-1653), Taylor, pub. Hamilton, Adams and Co. (1888), can be found with a Google Books search ; a down-loadable PDF file is also available. FYI. Archimedes (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your trimming of The Four Quartets. The problem just lasted for such a long time. I didn't pay much attention afterward, and I was delighted to see it fixed. :) Ottava Rima 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Antiquary, I moved the alleged Caesar quote "nothing to fear but fear itself" from the main Caesar article to the article's discussion page, because there are neither primary nor secondary sources referring to this saying. Also added some notes & explanations. —85.178.66.138 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible source for "Death is not extinguishing the light; it is only putting out the lamp because the dawn has come."

Variants:
Death is not extinguishing the light; it is putting out the lamp because dawn has come.
Death is not extinguishing the light; it is putting out the lamp because the dawn has come.
Nirvana is not the blowing out of the candle. It is the extinguishing of the flame because day is come.